"Guilds" aren't strong or weak.

Recommended Posts

So this is just a thought I'm having right now, but I think the conversation about Guild Balance might not be carried out in a way or fashion that's resoundingly helpful or elucidating.

So the argument tends to go that; "Guild X is weak because YZ."

While the position is perfectly valid to be made and defended, I think it's only helpful in broader contexts, like comparing the lists one guild is capable of making to the lists another is, and nearly useless for when models hit the table.

The difference between a Guild's 6, even within the same guild provide such a different play experience and set of strengths/weaknesses. A Hunter team that's attempting to nab takeouts at range, functions with very different goals to a melee takeout team that wants to enable the bear, which functions very differently to a buff and score focused team that wants to keep the ball in play.

And all of these teams function very differently based on the opposing team's strategy they're trying to play around.

Again, speaking from a Hunter's perspective I've had takeout success into low HP teams like Morticians, while I still struggle to do the same into high ARM teams like Masons. Once you factor in the different lineups, different opponents, different strategies, and different decisions in drafts and in game it starts to become an exercise in futility to try and say X model is objectively weak or strong. Context changes the conversation.

With that said, I still think it's valuable to talk about this kind of balance, but even moreso to contextualize such a conversation effectively. (E.G. Shank's 2/3 INF cap keeps him from feeling like he can accomplish anything of consequence, Stave's 2-0 defenses make him a momentum battery for the opposing team, vGraves back of card is a trap, etc etc etc.)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

No there aren't really strong/weak guilds (if you want to play pure balanced go play chess) but you do seem a slight difference between early and new guilds.
A lot of new guild have what I call free shenanigans.
I'm not saying it's OP or anything but just the Blacksmiths/Falconers "free" attacks from away or free characters plays of within x inch of a model feels a little bit weird to me.
Given I haven't played that much against both Guilds so it could just be me

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

No there aren't really strong/weak guilds (if you want to play pure balanced go play chess) but you do seem a slight difference between early and new guilds.

I wasn't really making an argument that no strong/weak guilds exist, but that it's difficult to determine when/how a guild is strong or weak because the conversation about that usually takes place outside of important contexts like the lists one is running, the regular opponents and lists one is facing, and most importantly, the decisions being made during gameplay.

I think there's a strong case to be made that many guilds are stronger or weaker than others, and I also think that the idea of perfect balance vs egregious imbalance is a bit of a strawman in the game design balance discussion.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well, there is pretty good data on Longshanks, isn't there? A guild not doing well in competition could be considered weak in that context. There's also been in-depth discussions as to the "why" and certain benchwarmers certainly don't help.

Overall, personally I am very happy with guild balance, though I also see power-creep. Only a few months until Season 4.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

There are better and worse guilds, that's why SFG swings the nerfhammer every now and then. Midas & Vitriol, Corsair's Crew, Shark, Thresher & Co. were nerfed in past months, not even mentioning S2 Obulus and Fillet. Denying imbalance between teams is ignoring.

We're in pretty good spot since last errata, vDecimate seems to be an outlier but the rest is fine. Not perfect but close enough.

Skill matters more than guild You play though and that's why I love GB.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think instead of looking at win numbers on Longshanks you'd need more detailed info. As the OP says there are so many decision making points along the way.

Who's in my 10? Why?

Who's in my 6? Why?

Who's in my opponents 10?

Who's in my opponents 6?

Did the opponents draft cause you to change yours?

Player skill trumps base Guild power every time and the context of their decision making is so important.

TLDR it's too complicated to look at an arbitrary stat and would require a load more data tracking as well as interviewing players to fully understand.

It would be futile to try and get any kind of meaningful dataset concerning these detailed questions. Longshanks has some details and the biggest base, so I don't see any point in saying that we need to go deeper, but can't.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Some guilds have more favorable matchups than others and some guilds have som really bad matchups.
It's not about any specific 6s but rather about what Tournament 10s can be built with the guilds available models and how they fare against other Torunament 10s within the current rule set.

Share on other sites

The important thing is the gap between them. If there’s a 1-2% difference between them the gap just isn’t consequential.

As it stands in Guildball there is a 10% gap between the “top” (54.4% ) and the “bottom” (44.6%). It’s worth noting that the bottom guild has nearly a 1000 games less then the top guild however and that guild won the German nationals.

So with that in mind I would say that there most likely is a worst and best guild in GB but the gap between them is small enough for it not too really matter in the hands equal skilled players.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So with that in mind I would say that there most likely is a worst and best guild in GB but the gap between them is small enough for it not too really matter in the hands equal skilled players.

Hmm, wouldn't the fact that the gab is small mean it only matters between equally skilled players?

If the gap is small and you are a good player you will still beat most bad/average/decent players. However if you are facing someone at the same skill level as you the small gap suddenly matters as you space for outplaying them is much smaller.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Today a young man on acid realized that "guilds" are neither strong nor weak, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the Weather.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Today a young man on acid realized that "guilds" are neither strong nor weak, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the Weather.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

What is pure strength i Guildball? Everything that helps you directly win the game. 2" Melee, Passive value, kick values, dodges, how much momentum someone can generate, are the results that generate momentum useful? Movement speed.

If we take the Union for example it is no wonder why the explode. They consist of almost nothing but Super Star Players that are good in almost every fashion that can be presented to someone. Decimate was already insane, and now Brewers have access to Vecimate, which is absolutely broken from the standpoint of the above mentioned things. Alloy. Bonkers. Insane. Absolutely broken. I have no idea why I would ever bring anyone else for both damage and Goalscoring.

What is passive value? Reanimate, Close Control, Sturdy, all those abilities that do something without controlling player input, or only minimal input. One of the reasons why I think that Corsair is just idiotically insane. He gives a team that already is strong in the offense additional passive value that they never should have gotten to begin with.

The problem I see with every model being released / added they fill gaps that never should have been filled. Hag makes Corsair a better version of Shark that does not die. I am pretty happy that at least A&G can't play for them anymore.

Now the problem here is the imbalance between considering the gaps. If we look at the Morticians, they got Pelage and Skulk. Now some people know since S3 hit I am not a big fan of the Morts anymore, but those two models added the passive value that I was talking about and the Morts were in dire need of, because everything just steamrolled them.

To get into more detail, just in case the Passive Value thing flies over someones head because I explained it badly, here are some models with Passive value.

Corsair, Sturdy, Close Control, 2" melee, Tough Hide, the combination of those abilities goes up exponentially in strength, not linear
Velocity, Hoist, Compound, lots of Reanimate, close control, high def, basically undying, and then there is Horrific Odour and Gluttonous Mass
Pelage, Ghast, Casket, slowing doen the enemy, locking places, inf sucker and even if killed net momentum loss compare to every other model.

To almost none of the above mentioned things you need to do something to trigger them. They are almost all triggered simply by the normal interaction models have with each other on the battlefield

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

To get into more detail, just in case the Passive Value thing flies over someones head because I explained it badly, here are some models with Passive value.

Corsair, Sturdy, Close Control, 2" melee, Tough Hide, the combination of those abilities goes up exponentially in strength, not linear
Velocity, Hoist, Compound, lots of Reanimate, close control, high def, basically undying, and then there is Horrific Odour and Gluttonous Mass
Pelage, Ghast, Casket, slowing doen the enemy, locking places, inf sucker and even if killed net momentum loss compare to every other model.

I really like this post and explanation, and while I don't have much to contribute I just wanted to mention Seenah for being the literal opposite.

A 0/2 INf who needs 2 influence to do her thing means she's passively depriving you of a functional 4 influence/Turn. That's like, passive.... Non-Value?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I really like this post and explanation, and while I don't have much to contribute I just wanted to mention Seenah for being the literal opposite.

A 0/2 INf who needs 2 influence to do her thing means she's passively depriving you of a functional 4 influence/Turn. That's like, passive.... Non-Value?

Basically. Though I like the bear. It is far fetched, but she basically gets a 4 Inf turn by charging for free. So even if you give Seenah none she can still charge. There is also the rest of the team. Hunters are pretty strong and have overall good value in their team in my experience.